Godwin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
Citation | 540 F.2d 1013 |
Decision Date | 16 August 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 75-2196,75-2196 |
Parties | 4 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1603, 1976-1977 O.S.H.D. ( 21,084 Richard GODWIN, Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, Respondent. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
David A. Rosenfeld of Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg, Williams & Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Robert K. Salyers, Jr., Atty. of U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before CARTER and ELY, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, * District Judge.
The issue in this appeal is whether Les Mares Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter "Les Mares") was an "employer engaged in a business affecting commerce" and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 651, et seq.) (hereafter the "Act"). We hold that Les Mares was such an employer and we reverse the decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (hereafter the "Commission").
In late 1972, Les Mares owned several hundred acres of Napa Valley land, and it had employees engaged in clearing the land. As part of the clearing operation it was using a guillotine-like wood-chopping machine. The machine caused repeated employee complaints and accidents, including one incident in which a worker, petitioner Richard Godwin, lost three fingers from his right hand.
Pursuant to a routine inspection conducted by an authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor, Les Mares was cited on March 5, 1973, for a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1), for failing to furnish its employees "employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm." Les Mares was served with a proposed penalty of $600 for this violation, and ordered to abate the condition within one day. Les Mares timely contested the citation and proposed penalty, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 659(c), and a hearing was conducted before one of the Commission's administrative law judges.
This judge found that there was an effect on interstate commerce and that the Commission therefore had jurisdiction. The judge held that the charged violation was valid. On review of this decision sought by Les Mares, the Commission reversed the administrative law judge. The Commission held that Les Mares was not engaging in a business affecting commerce because at the time of the citation and hearing Les Mares had not completed its plans to plant a vineyard and hence had not engaged in a business affecting commerce.
Les Mares admitted that its purpose in clearing the land was to plant a vineyard, and to sell grapes to wineries or produce wine itself. At the time of the hearing the activities had progressed beyond clearing. The land was being "ripped", a cultivation process that normally immediately precedes the planting of grapes. However, no vineyards had been planted and Les Mares had not yet determined whether it would do the growing and winemaking itself or lease the land to others for that purpose.
Uncontradicted testimony at the hearing showed that 65-70% of the wine produced in California is shipped out of state, and that at least 25-30%, and possibly up to 50%, of the wine produced in the Napa Valley location of Les Mares' land is shipped out of state. Testimony also showed that a significant amount of Napa Valley grapes is sold to wineries outside the valley, whose products move in interstate commerce. Also, tourists from out of state frequent Napa Valley wine-tasting rooms, where wine is made available for sale.
29 U.S.C. § 651 sets forth the Congressional statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy. This section reads, in part:
The background of the Act was described in Brennan v. Gilles & Cotting, Inc., 504 F.2d 1255, 1259 (4 Cir. 1974), as follows:
"Confronting a legislative record which showed that each year 14,500 workers died and two million were disabled because of their jobs, resulting in $1.5 billion in lost wages and an $8 billion loss to the GNP (citation), Congress passed a wide-ranging bill, characterized by one commentator as 'the most revolutionary piece of "labor" legislation since the National Labor Relations Act.' " (citation)
The Act imposes duties under § 654 on "employers". 29 U.S.C. § 652(5) provides, in part: "The term 'employer' means a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees . . . ."
The phrase "affecting commerce" in this Act has been interpreted by two other circuit courts as an indication that Congress exercised its full powers under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Dye Construction Co., 510 F.2d 78 (10 Cir. 1975), and Brennan v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Com'n,492 F.2d 1027 (2 Cir. 1974). Dye, at 83, stated that, "The use of the words 'affecting commerce' tells us that it was the intent of Congress to exercise fully its constitutional authority under the commerce clause." (citations) Brennan, at 1030, held similarly and stated:
"Throughout the legislative history of the Act, the objective was repeatedly stated to be to make maximum use of the commerce power . . . ."
We hold also that Congress intended the coverage of the Act to be as broad as the scope of the commerce clause. 1
The power of the Congress, acting pursuant to the Commerce Clause, to regulate intrastate activities which substantially affect interstate commerce, was perhaps best enunciated by the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942). At issue in Wickard was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which attempted to control the volume of wheat moving in interstate commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high wheat price. The Supreme Court held that:
"(t)he effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. (citation)
Id. at 127-29, 63 S.Ct. at 90.
In the case at bar the activity of clearing land for the purpose of growing grapes is an activity which, if performed under unsafe conditions, will adversely affect commerce. Clearing land is an integral part of the manufacturing of wine, and therefore commerce is affected by the activity. Hodgson v. Ewing, 451 F.2d 526, 528 (5 Cir. 1971). Hodgson held that an employer in the business of clearing brush for the improvement of agricultural land could be regulated by Congress. We note that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., involved in Hodgson, Congress used the phrase "closely related and directly essential" to commerce, a phrase indicating that the Act does not extend to the maximum authority given the Congress under the Commerce Clause. 2 A fortiori the similar activity can be covered by an Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marshall v. Whirlpool Corp.
...army of inspectors could not keep America's work places safe. Safety and profit are sometimes mutually exclusive. See Godwin v. OSHRC, 540 F.2d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 1976). In the words of the D.C. Circuit: "Safety costs money. The temptation to minimize compliance with safety regulations an......
-
Usery v. Lacy
...regulate, in extending the Act to employers whose activities in the aggregate affect commerce. 3 See Godwin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 540 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Dye Constr. Co., 510 F.2d 78 (10th Cir. 1975); Brennan v. Occupational Safety and Heal......
-
McGowan v. Marshall
...them to be totally devoid of merit. The Act is a constitutional exercise of the commerce power. See Godwin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, 540 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1976). Furthermore, its enforcement provisions do not deprive the right to jury trial provided by the sixth o......
-
Austin Road Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
...the full extent of the authority granted by the commerce clause of the Constitution. See, e.g., Godwin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 540 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Dye Construction Co., 510 F.2d 78 (10th Cir. 1975); Brennan v. Occupational Safety & Health R......
-
Occupational Safety and Health in Colorado
...29 U.S.C. § 651(b). 6. 29 U.S.C. § 652(5). 7. 29 U.S.C. § 652(3). 8. McCloud v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 419, 495 (1943). 9. Godwin v. OSHRC, 540 F.2d 1013, 1015 (9th Cir. 1976); U.S. v. Dye Construction Co., 510 F.2d 78, 83 (10th Cir. 1975). 10. Brennan v. OSHRC, 492 F.2d 1027 (2d Cir. 1974). 1......
-
29 C.F.R. § 801.3 Coverage
...full scope of the Congressional power to regulate commerce. See, for example, Godwin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 540 F. 2d 1013, 1015 (9th Cir. 1976). Since most employers engage in one or more types of activities that would be regarded as "affecting commerce" under......